Citation Nr: 21015918
Decision Date: 03/18/21	Archive Date: 03/18/21

DOCKET NO. 17-53 984
DATE: March 18, 2021

REMANDED

The claim for service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is remanded.

The claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from August 2001 to August 2005.    

A February 2020 Board decision denied the service connection claim for CFS and TDIU claim, to which the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Court”).  In October 2020, the Court vacated the February 2020 Board decision and remanded the issues for actions consistent with a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR).  

In the JMR, parties agreed that the Board erred in (1) relying a September 2017 VA medical opinion on CFS which failed to discuss VA treatment notes dated August 27, 2015 showing that a VA physician provided the Veteran with an assessment of chronic fatigue, and (2) failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases in denying TDIU by not properly addressing the Veteran’s limitations due to his service connected PTSD. 

In light of JMR as well as new evidence submitted by the Veteran on his vocational evaluation, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions:

Obtain a VA medical opinion to assess the Veteran’s fatigue symptom. If a physical examination is required to answer the Board question, one should be scheduled. The examiner should answer the following question:  

(a)	Does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of CFS pursuant to the VA regulations? Why or why not?

In doing so, the examiner should discuss the VA treatment notes dated August 27, 2015, showing that a VA physician provided an assessment of “chronic fatigue - fits diagnosis, no obvious etiology, depression/PTSD certainly contribute.” (See 9/23/2015 document entitled “CAPRI”). 

The examiner should review the October 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (CAVC Decision received October 21, 2020) for an explanation of why the prior VA opinion was found to be inadequate.

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Q. Wang, Associate Counsel

The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.